The United States isn’t a “democracy.”

[dukkha]

Most of the founders believed that a diffused democracy weakened the ability of politicians to scaremonger and rely on emotional appeals to take power. Most of them believed that proportional voting blunted the vagaries of the electorate and helped ensure national stability. Contemporary Democrats agree, which is why they want to scrap the system. So much for protecting norms.

Now that they believe they have the numbers, Democrats prefer a system where politicians who promise the most free stuff to the largest number of people win. Since they can’t admit it, we have to wrestle with preposterous arguments in favor of overturning the Electoral College. The most absurd is the notion that in a direct democracy every vote “counts.”

“My view is that every vote matters and the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the electoral college—and every vote counts,” Elizabeth Warren said this week. It looks like most Democratic Party hopefuls are following her lead.

Fact: We always “count” every vote, but “every vote” never counts.

It might come as a surprise to many Americans that their losing ballots don’t count in elections, which is why we disperse power in this country: to protect political and geographical minorities. As anyone who’s looked at a history of electoral maps can see, the most closely fought-over states are always changing because the issues Americans care about are always changing. Today, much of the divide is between urban, rural, and suburban areas, making the Electoral College even more vital.

This is such a daft idea on its face,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes wrote, reacting to Lindsey Graham’s contention that eliminating the Electoral College is meant to snuff out the political voice of rural Americans. “Every American already lives in a state that has both cities and rural areas. During statewide races, politicians campaign all over!”

in the end, it is urban areas that predominately elect Democrats, not rural ones. In direct national elections—with vast spaces to cover and limited time to campaign—politicians would be incentivized to rack up as many votes as they could in accessible urban areas with huge media markets. The Electoral College, imperfect as it is, forces candidates to moderate their views, create coalitions, and appeal to voters is disparate areas.

For example, it’s the kind of system that might induce a Democratic Party candidate for the presidency to consider the voters of Wisconsin from their Brooklyn campaign headquarters.

Some people like to point out that the Electoral College couldn’t really be important since we’ve only had four elections where it was in conflict with the “popular vote.” The Electoral College isn’t about outcomes, it’s about process.

forcing candidates to calibrate and moderate their message to appeal to the widest number of areas and states helps diminish partisanship and concentration of power.

No, there’s nothing particularly radical about partisans proposing amendments that reflect their positions (a balanced budget amendment or an equal rights amendment). None of the ones the GOP has proposed fundamentally challenge one of the core ideas of our governing process. The idea of proportional voting and states’ rights and decentralized power are not the same as an amendment dealing with bookkeeping.

Then again, it was unsurprising to see media outlets quickly take up the Democrats’ cause.

“The Electoral College has been debated since the days of James Madison, who called it ‘evil,’” CNN’s John Avalon falsely claimed.

Madison was referring to elections that would be thrown to the House of Representatives, which awards two votes to states of every size. As others have pointed out, “evil” in Madison’s connotation, meant harm, not nefariousness. Of all the founders, in fact, Madison, who wanted to create more voters in the Electoral College, made the most impassioned arguments against direct democracy in Federalist #10.

To be fair, it’s going to take a ton of historical revisionism and fairy tales to make constitutional sense of the Democrats’ position.

Though, one of the most (inadvertently) instructive arguments against the Electoral College has been made by people pointing to polls that prove its unpopularity. Did you know that the majority of Americans prefer majoritarianism? Yes, we do. That’s one of the reasons why the Electoral College exists. Direct democracy disenfranchises a sizable minority of Americans.
http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/20/...-constitution/

[kudzu]

Most of the founders believed that a diffused democracy weakened the ability of politicians to scaremonger and rely on emotional appeals to take power. Most of them believed that proportional voting blunted the vagaries of the electorate and helped ensure national stability. Contemporary Democrats agree, which is why they want to scrap the system. So much for protecting norms.

Now that they believe they have the numbers, Democrats prefer a system where politicians who promise the most free stuff to the largest number of people win. Since they can’t admit it, we have to wrestle with preposterous arguments in favor of overturning the Electoral College. The most absurd is the notion that in a direct democracy every vote “counts.”

“My view is that every vote matters and the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the electoral college—and every vote counts,” Elizabeth Warren said this week. It looks like most Democratic Party hopefuls are following her lead.

Fact: We always “count” every vote, but “every vote” never counts.

It might come as a surprise to many Americans that their losing ballots don’t count in elections, which is why we disperse power in this country: to protect political and geographical minorities. As anyone who’s looked at a history of electoral maps can see, the most closely fought-over states are always changing because the issues Americans care about are always changing. Today, much of the divide is between urban, rural, and suburban areas, making the Electoral College even more vital.



in the end, it is urban areas that predominately elect Democrats, not rural ones. In direct national elections—with vast spaces to cover and limited time to campaign—politicians would be incentivized to rack up as many votes as they could in accessible urban areas with huge media markets. The Electoral College, imperfect as it is, forces candidates to moderate their views, create coalitions, and appeal to voters is disparate areas.

For example, it’s the kind of system that might induce a Democratic Party candidate for the presidency to consider the voters of Wisconsin from their Brooklyn campaign headquarters.

Some people like to point out that the Electoral College couldn’t really be important since we’ve only had four elections where it was in conflict with the “popular vote.” The Electoral College isn’t about outcomes, it’s about process.

forcing candidates to calibrate and moderate their message to appeal to the widest number of areas and states helps diminish partisanship and concentration of power.

No, there’s nothing particularly radical about partisans proposing amendments that reflect their positions (a balanced budget amendment or an equal rights amendment). None of the ones the GOP has proposed fundamentally challenge one of the core ideas of our governing process. The idea of proportional voting and states’ rights and decentralized power are not the same as an amendment dealing with bookkeeping.

Then again, it was unsurprising to see media outlets quickly take up the Democrats’ cause.
Madison was referring to elections that would be thrown to the House of Representatives, which awards two votes to states of every size. As others have pointed out, “evil” in Madison’s connotation, meant harm, not nefariousness. Of all the founders, in fact, Madison, who wanted to create more voters in the Electoral College, made the most impassioned arguments against direct democracy in Federalist #10.

To be fair, it’s going to take a ton of historical revisionism and fairy tales to make constitutional sense of the Democrats’ position.

Though, one of the most (inadvertently) instructive arguments against the Electoral College has been made by people pointing to polls that prove its unpopularity. Did you know that the majority of Americans prefer majoritarianism? Yes, we do. That’s one of the reasons why the Electoral College exists. Direct democracy disenfranchises a sizable minority of Americans.
http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/20/...-constitution/

The first person in my lifetime that I remember raving to disband the Electoral College was Donald Trump in 2012.

[Jack]

'One Man, One Vote'.

[Earl]

One man votes for one person and if it’s a majority vote in the state in which he resides, the electoral votes, or a proportion of the electoral votes, goes to that person...just as the Founding Fathers wanted.

[CFM]

The first person in my lifetime that I remember raving to disband the Electoral College was Donald Trump in 2012.

As old as your wrinkled ass is, that's a lie.

You lefties were all for the EC until Trump kicked your ass in an election.

304 - 227.

[dukkha]

there are all kinds of demagoguery - 'One Man, One Vote' ,etc. But even the Congress isn't all 1 man 1 vote.

The House is proportional, but the Senate is egalitarian to protect the rights of the small populous states..
The total Congress of the House and Senate is the exact same formula the EC uses.
We are a representative ( or democratic) Republic -as is the EC design

[CFM]

'One Man, One Vote'.

Were you denied the right to vote?

[kudzu]

As old as your wrinkled ass is, that's a lie.

You lefties were all for the EC until Trump kicked your ass in an election.

304 - 227.

You're a moron.

Trump in 2012: ‘The electoral college is a disaster for a ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...pdates/general...

“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy,” Trump tweeted on Nov. 6, 2012. The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

Trump called Electoral College a 'disaster' in 2012 tweet
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...cs/2016/11/09/...

Nov 10, 2016 · The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012 As of 9:19 p.m. ET, Clinton had 59,888,392 votes to Trump's 59,668,718, a lead of …

[CFM]

You're a moron.

Trump in 2012: ‘The electoral college is a disaster for a ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...pdates/general...

“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy,” Trump tweeted on Nov. 6, 2012. The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

Trump called Electoral College a 'disaster' in 2012 tweet
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...cs/2016/11/09/...

Nov 10, 2016 · The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012 As of 9:19 p.m. ET, Clinton had 59,888,392 votes to Trump's 59,668,718, a lead of …

304 - 227. Hillary got her ass kicked. Is that why you went back to walking the streets? I get it. You thought Hillary getting elected would mean you wouldn't have to do that anymore.

Strange how you lefties are against the EC now that you lost.

[evince]

http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/20/...-constitution/[/QUOTE]

right wing crap

[CFM]

http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/20/...-constitution/

right wing crap[/QUOTE]

Left wing snowflake. Keep melting.

304 - 227.

[Legion]

Were you denied the right to vote?

Only if he's a convicted felon or foreign national, I suppose. DEMOCRATS want them to vote, don't they? Along with kids.

[CFM]

Only if he's a convicted felon or foreign national, I suppose. DEMOCRATS want them to vote, don't they? Along with kids.

Since when has being either one of those, both in some situations, stopped Democrats from wanting them to vote?

[evince]

the word democracy was CHANGED by what the founders designed



they created a hybrid government of democracy, constitution and representation


Pure or direct democracy now means what the word Democracy used to mean


Democracy now covers a republic



words have meanings


The founders ideas were SOOOOOOOOO effective and successful they changed the meanings of words


You can tell when people don't know and or honor the meanings of words and the full impact our brand new type of Democracy created by the founders because they lie about the meaning of the word Democracy


this OP is just ne such shit drip



only an idiot and or traitor would make the claims made here


so fuck the federalist site

and

fuck cosmic rocker

[CFM]

the word democracy was CHANGED by what the founders designed



they created a hybrid government of democracy, constitution and representation


Pure democracy now means what the word Democracy used to mean


Democracy now covers a republic



words have meanings


The founders ideas were SOOOOOOOOO effective and successful they changed the meanings of words


You can tell when people don't know and or honor the meanings of words and the full impact our brand new type of Democracy created by the founders because they lie about the meaning of the word Democracy


this OP is just ne such shit drip



only an idiot and or traitor would make the claims made here


so fuck the federalist site

and

fuck cosmic rocker

You don't dictate what words mean, cunt.